Search gigs by type (paid/volunteer) or keyword. Returns matching gigs with summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by gig type. Defaults to "all". | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword to match against gig title, description, or qualifications. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole carrier of behavioral information. It discloses that it returns matching gigs with summaries, which is useful, but it doesn't mention any potential side effects (none expected), ordering, pagination, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and key filters, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('summaries') and filtering dimensions. It lacks details like result limits or ordering, but this is likely acceptable for simple search. The presence of siblings suggests a clear role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the type parameter but omits the 'all' option, and the keyword parameter is not elaborated. The schema descriptions already provide detailed meaning, so the description adds little.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'gigs', and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_gigs' and 'get_gig' by specifying filtering by type or keyword and returning summaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies usage when filtering gigs by type or keyword, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself doesn't say 'for all gigs use list_gigs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: gigs have list/get/search/apply, reports have list/get, and events/services are separate. No two tools overlap in purpose or behavior.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_*, get_*, search_*, apply_to_*. The singular/plural distinction (get_gig vs list_gigs) is logical and consistent across resources.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool contributes to the core workflows of browsing gigs, applying, and accessing auxiliary information like reports and events.
The gig lifecycle is well covered: discovery (list/search), details (get), and action (apply). Minor gaps exist, such as no way to track or manage applications, but this is likely outside the server's intended agent-facing scope.
